Armstrong: U.S. Postal Service got 'what it bargained for'

Jul. 23, 2013
|

In this file photo, Lance Armstrong, riding for the U.S. Postal Service, reacts as he crosses the finish line to win the 15th stage of the 2004 Tour de France. Armstrong is facing the federal government in a legal fight with tens of millions of dollars at stake. / Peter Dejong, AP

by Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports

by Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports

Lance Armstrong has struck back at the federal government's lawsuit, saying that U.S. Postal Service authorities were well aware of allegations that he was doping but did nothing to stop it because they benefited from it.

Because of that, the former cyclist argues that the government's civil fraud suit against him should be thrown out of court. Armstrong's attorneys filed the motion to dismiss Tuesday, also arguing that the government's case is too old to bring because it is barred by the six-year statute of limitations.

The motion, filed in the District of Columbia, is in response to a suit filed by the government against Armstrong and others in April â?? a complaint that accused them of defrauding the government through their use of performance-enhancing drugs on a cycling team sponsored by the USPS.

Armstrong argues that the USPS had "actual specific knowledge of specific allegations that its team was doping" when the USPS contract came up for renewal in 2000. To support this claim, Armstrong cites a French investigation into doping on the USPS team in 2000 and media inquiries about the issue.

"Although the government now pretends to be aggrieved by these allegations, its actions at the time are far more telling: Did it immediately fire the Postal Service Team?," Armstrong's motion asks. "Did it suspend the team pending an investigation? Did it refer the matter to its phalanx of lawyers and investigators at the Department of Justice for review? It did not.

"Rather than exercise its right to terminate the sponsorship agreement, it instead renewed its contract to sponsor the team. The rationale behind the government's decision is obvious. Armstrong had recently won the 2000 Tour de France. The government wanted a winner and all the publicity, exposure, and acclaim that goes along with being his sponsor. It got exactly what it bargained for."

On behalf of the USPS, the government filed suit against Armstrong and his associates earlier this year under the False Claims Act. The USPS paid $40 million to sponsor Armstrong's team from about 1995 to 2004 and said it wouldn't have paid the sponsorship if it had known Armstrong's team was doping.

The defendants "made false statements, both publicly and directly to the USPS, that were intended to hide the team's misconduct so that those invoices would be paid," the government's complaint said.

Under the False Claims Act, the government could recover triple damages â?? possibly as much as $120 million â?? if it succeeds in proving its case. In filing the suit against Armstrong, the government joined a case originally filed under seal in June 2010 by former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis, who stands to get a cut of the damages as a whistleblower if the government succeeds.

After years of strenuous denials, Armstrong admitted to several years of doping, lies and bullying during a televised interview in January with Oprah Winfrey.

The government's case is not going to hinge on whether Armstrong doped. Instead, it will hinge on legal issues such as whether Armstrong violated his contracts with the USPS, whether the USPS was damaged by it and the statute of limitations. The motion says that the government paid its last invoice to the cycling team nine days before Landis filed suit.

"It is now far too late for the government to revisit its choice to reap the benefits of sponsorship rather than investigate allegations of doping," Armstrong's motion argues. "The statute of limitations for a False Claims Act suit is six years and runs from the date of each claim. Floyd Landis filed this suit on June 10, 2010. Therefore, if the government's claim was paid before June 10, 2004, any suit to recover on that claim is barred."